This of course is poppycock. Neither the interaction of CO2 molecules with infra red radiation, nor the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, its provenance or the data from instrumental records about temperature are matters of anyone’s point of view, but of observation, and no view one could have about them could alter any part of that a jot. They are what they are.

The denier position has never involved an attempt to mount a competing theory of the drivers of the post-1850 temperature anomaly to that of mainstream science and this failure reflects more than the mere empirical and scientific challenges of such a project. Rather, it reflects the reality that what they are bothered about are the implications for public policy. They don’t need to show that the science is wrong. Most of the people about whose opinions politicians are bothered would be hard pressed explaining it anyway, so the exercise would be massively wasteful of resources. What the opponents of policy need are a set of scientistic slogans that can be repeated by those parts of the populace who don’t want their basic desire for their corners of the world to stay as they are to sound selfish or reckless. They need noises that can be uttered on cue by armies of gun toting backwoods orcs and christian fundies can repeat on cue. And for that they don’t need science. They don’t need the objections to even be consistent. They just need frivolous doubt rebranded as “skepticism”.

“Doubt is our product” as the tobacco lobbyists (some of whom are running this campaign) used to say. Spread doubt about the science and then everyone who hates elites, everyone who is jealous of those more accomplished or has a self-esteem problem or feels marginalised can become an ally. In most countries, but in the US especially, that is a hell of a lot of people. Adduce visceral hatred for elites, for government, for “ivory tower” academics, “bureaucrats” and so forth and suddenly James Hansen can become science’s Bernie Madoff, and Al Gore the Madoff of politics. The elites currently alienating the commons can posture as friends of people living in trailer parks and driving F100 pick-up trucks who sound like extras from Petticoat Junction. It’s ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’ writ large.

Let there be no mistake: this is a cleverly structured campaign being run by the world’s filth merchants to hide their persistent theft from the commons behind the populist banner of cultural authenticity. And they don’t need to be 100% successful. They just need to whiteant and delay by keeping people in doubt, by implying that there is some debate to be had about the fundamental science so that fear of change can function as their ally.

We must not allow them to get away this. No important judgement made by individuals or communities can call absolute certainty on all conceivable relevant matters to its side. Every rational act of individual or collective policy (including those that turn out to be flawed) is the result of well-tutored inference, because there is nothing better and no better way of discovering what “better still” might entail.

So it is too with policy here. We know plenty enough to know what elements good mitigation policy must contain and we are bound to follw it event as we acknowledge that uncertainties about the precise effectiveness of our measures and the interplay of these with dynamic elements in the biosphere remain. To refrain from acting would be irredeemably reckless.

Fran

It’s a tendency that everyone has, some (most) don’t recognize it as applying to them.

But really, I don’t know better than you do how you think, not necessarily, it’s just something you should reflect about, if you haven’t already. And if you have, perhaps time to reflect again.

In formal written texts the learned is most common both for the past definite and for the past participle. “Learnt” is more common in written transcription of informal vernacular.

I suggest you look up the latest findings on climate sensitivity, but I’m not going to bother finding the links for you. It will come up in a post I plan to do soon.

Please don’t feed the denialists.

John, inform yourself. Trot over to deltoid, Real Climate, or Brave New Climate and learn about what the scientists say, not what a bunch of emeritus oil geologists are fantasizing about.

(Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.) [...]
At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.”

Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying “I don’t have the expertise.”

A metallurgical engineer who admits (rightly) that he lacks the expertise to evaluate what he is commenting on?

Amusing. What a lame attempt at deception!

The standard model sells for 140,000 rupees ($3595) including tax in the showroom. The deluxe models cost up to 185,000 rupees ($4750).

The deluxe model comes with extra features: air-conditioning, automatic windows and central locking.

How many Indians in India? Over 1 billion.

How much extra petroleum production will be needed?

Right, that does it. I’m buying oil shares tomorrow.

It runs in part:

Now Ian Plimer has written a book, Heaven and Earth, getting a lot of people very excited, and guess what? The volcano factoid is back! Back from the dead, volcanoes are celebrated by deniers one again.

The process goes like this:

1. Global Warming Denier makes claim
2. Claim is comprehensively, indisputably debunked
3. Claim is withdrawn, while Denier publicly continues to assert they are the new Galileo and their critics are religious fanatics with no regard for facts
4. New Global Warming Denier makes exactly the same claim as if previous debate never happened

And on and on. Apparently forever. No matter how often the volcano factoid — just one of many — is shown to be false, it will come back. Maybe in a new book, film, newspaper article, bogus scientific paper produced by a think tank funded by industry, from the mouth of a TV pundit, or from a politician. It will survive in a fact-free vacuum, ready to be reborn as required.

This link may shed some light on what has been dubbed “agnotology” or “the Cultural Production of Ignorance”.

I didn’t even notice that you’d missed out a question mark, btw: I was merely commenting on your lack of coherence.